Ergonomic assessment of working postures in clothing sector with scientific observation methods

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to comparatively examine the personnel working in the clothing sector by examining them in three different methods in order to determine the working postures, identification of the stress factors of musculoskeletal system and the exposures depending on the working postures. Methods used in the study, REBA (Hignett and McAtamney, 2000), Ovako Working Posture Analyzing System (OWAS) (Karhu et al., 1977) and PLIBEL (Kemmlert, 1995) are the scientific observation-based methods. Within the scope of this study, the working stations and the working postures of the operators who work in the clothing sector were examined and their movements that could cause harm to the body were examined and in conclusion some suggestions were suggested to prevent these movements. Design/methodology/approach Due to the standard unit of times in clothing sector are short and the work done is very repetitive, 30 min recording was thought as enough for each operator examined. These recorded videos were then divided into 30 s photographs to obtain the poses of the operators’ working postures. In the scope of the research, first, the PLIBEL observation form was filled as the PLIBEL method is more general one. According to the working postures, the body regions which are damaged or can be damaged were identified and the PLIBEL form was filled in the consideration of the risk factors in the form (Malchaire 2011). In addition, the photographs were also analyzed with REBA and OWAS methods for having more quantitative and detailed results. Findings The working postures of the operators who work in the cutting, sewing, ironing, quality control and packaging departments of six clothing companies were examined in the scope of this research with PLIBEL, REBA and OWAS methods in terms of ergonomy. The results belonging to each department were given separately. REBA and OWAS methods have been applied in order to investigate the working postures in more detail due to the lack of providing numerical data of the PLIBEL method. The reliability of the study has been approved with obtaining the similar results from the REBA and OWAS methods. According to Table VIII, both of the methods show that all the departments in question need ergonomic arrangements. It was analyzed that the cutting department is in the first place which needs ergonomic arrangement immediately (REBA %90.58, OWAS %87.69). Practical implications This study is composed of 65 operators who have experience between 5 and 22 years and in the age range of 22–43 working in the cutting, sewing, ironing, quality control and packaging departments in eight different clothing companies. These 65 operators were recorded by video camera during their work. The recording time were selected randomly. The movements of operators during their own work have been taken into consideration. Originality/value This paper indicates the usability of the PLIBEL, OWAS and REBA methods in clothing sector. Using these methods in clothing sectors states the value and the originality of this paper.

Systematic Comparison of OWAS, RULA, and REBA Based on a Literature Review

“…The three techniques have been applied to various fields such as aerospace, agriculture, bicycle repairing, cattle slaughter, construction, experimental environment, food, forestry, hospital, kitchen, laboratory, lifting tasks, manufacturing, potter and sculptor, sawmill, service industries, tailors, typist, and welders. The sample sizes for the applications varied from two working postures [ 36 ] to 4251 postures [ 37 ]. For effective comparison, some studies regrouped postural loads into three or four risk levels with consideration of the meanings of risk categories for the techniques adopted.…”

“…Of the 13 studies in which the OWAS and REBA were simultaneously applied, 10 studies except those by Kee et al [ 25 ], Isler et al [ 37 ], and Mukhopadhyay et al [ 39 ] concluded that the REBA-rated postural loads were more stressful than the OWAS-rated postural loads. According to Kee et al [ 25 ], the OWAS evaluated postural loads for 72 experimental postures as more stressful than the REBA, but the differences were not statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p > 0.20).…”

“…According to Kee et al [ 25 ], the OWAS evaluated postural loads for 72 experimental postures as more stressful than the REBA, but the differences were not statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p > 0.20). Isler et al [ 37 ] estimated postural loads for 4237 and 4251 postures in the clothing sector using the OWAS and REBA, respectively, which resulted in no significant differences between the postural loads by the OWAS and REBA (Paired t -test, p > 0.10). Mukhopadhyay et al [ 39 ] reported that the OWAS and REBA assessed nine activities in bicycle repairing with the same action category or level 4.…”

An Overview of REBA Method Applications in the World

“…Isler et al [75] studied 65 operators from different departments (cutting, sewing, ironing, quality control, etc.) in eight companies using video cameras, resulting in a REBA score of more than 11 points; thus, they recommended immediate intervention.…”

Analysis of the Reduction of Ergonomic Risks through the Implementation of an Automatic Tape Packaging Machine

“…Five levels of risk are identified where the lowest scale is called negligible and the highest is called very high [ 16 ]. The method is applied in [ 17 ] for ergonomic assessment in clothing sector. In addition, the article [ 18 ] evaluates the postures assumed by an operator during the manual feeding of a wood-chipper for the assessment of the biomechanical postural overload risk.…”